Do Churches Spend Money On Real Charity? 2 Studies Show Not Really. (hell, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure I agree that the exact amount that is spent on charity is really all that important. Obviously, it's different from one church to another, but in the LDS Church, the money in certain funds (the Humanitarian Fund, Fast Offerings, and LDS Philanthropies) is used exclusively for humanitarian purposes (as opposed to administrative costs). When I see an accounting of what has been accomplished with the funds donated by Church members, it's pretty clear that a lot of good work is being done. Another thing is that you can't just look at humanitarian giving in terms of a dollar amount. That would be extremely misleading. Volunteerism in the LDS Church is enormous, and when you've got that much totally free labor helping people in need worldwide, you have to take that into account if you're going to get an accurate picture.
None of the individuals receiving this aid had to listen to a missionary try to convert him to Mormonism in order to be helped. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the people who benefited from this aid probably didn't even know where it came from. Considering that the people who are donating these funds and services comprise only 2/10ths of the world's population, I'd say my Church is doing a pretty darned good job of caring for the poor.
This is absolutely key, and is to be commended.
In the evangelical environment I grew up in, this would have been decried as the dreaded "Social Gospel", a distraction from the spiritual regeneration we (baselessly) viewed to be at the heart of all true social change. Hence for example a friend of mine who was in those days a missionary in the Yucatan region of Mexico, indeed arranged for trainloads of grain to be delivered to that region following the devastation of Hurricane Gilbert. But ... he also felt obligated to condition the delivery of the grain and other aid upon people viewing a Spanish-dubbed "life of Christ" movie shown in each village, and other proselytization efforts.
Many charitable acts by churches, or should I say members are not on the books. A church I used to attend would announce what they were collecting the following week. Once it was $5 fast food gift cards for the homeless. Sometimes diapers, can goods, new infant clothing, and others. Things like that would not be on the books.
I know of Catholic Churches that have separate envelopes in the box/packet/ or however they do it, that are for certain charities. That money is always accounted for.
Churches that I am aware of always list cash contributions to organizations on the financial report.
Considering that the people who are donating these funds and services comprise only 2/10ths of the world's population, I'd say my Church is doing a pretty darned good job of caring for the poor.
Correction: I gave Mormonism credit for being a whole lot bigger than it actually is. We don't comprise 2/10th of the world's population. We comprise 2/10th of 1 percent of the world's population. That makes our contribution significantly greater than my original post indicates. If any Church needs to step up to the plate in caring for the world's poor and needy, it's definitely not us.
Before I donate to a charity, I always check out guidestar.org. That way I can decide to give only to charities that give back 85%+ of the money they take in. Many, if not most, of the big named, well known charities have huge staff and CEO costs which take up most of the money and give back less than 50% of the money they take in.
When I was younger and went to church, our church would release the budget to be voted on. It was a small church so $70,000 went to preacher salary, another $33,000 to the office lady, and the rest pretty much on the building expenses. Of course the pastor would preach every week on how broke we were and how we need to give more. When pastors stop collecting paychecks and giving their money away, I may begin to have a sliver of respect for them. Until then, the majority seem to be caught up in furthering their "career" and making money, writing books and having cool websites. They want to "further the kingdom of god" but of course only if they are being financially compensated. Churches throw a measly chunk of change towards "missonaries" (who aren't really helping, only trying to convert and serve their own egos) to save face and the rest gets spent on themselves.
Only giving away 1/3 of the money you take in would make for a horrendously rated charity, but if churches give away 1/3 of the money they take in, they are supposed to be legit and praised for it? No thank you.
Also, I'm sure your church gives back 100% of the money and you're preacher is a great guy who never has taken a paycheck. I'm talking as a general rule here.
Before I donate to a charity, I always check out guidestar.org. That way I can decide to give only to charities that give back 85%+ of the money they take in. Many, if not most, of the big named, well known charities have huge staff and CEO costs which take up most of the money and give back less than 50% of the money they take in.
When I was younger and went to church, our church would release the budget to be voted on. It was a small church so $70,000 went to preacher salary, another $33,000 to the office lady, and the rest pretty much on the building expenses. Of course the pastor would preach every week on how broke we were and how we need to give more. When pastors stop collecting paychecks and giving their money away, I may begin to have a sliver of respect for them. Until then, the majority seem to be caught up in furthering their "career" and making money, writing books and having cool websites. They want to "further the kingdom of god" but of course only if they are being financially compensated. Churches throw a measly chunk of change towards "missonaries" (who aren't really helping, only trying to convert and serve their own egos) to save face and the rest gets spent on themselves.
Only giving away 1/3 of the money you take in would make for a horrendously rated charity, but if churches give away 1/3 of the money they take in, they are supposed to be legit and praised for it? No thank you.
Also, I'm sure your church gives back 100% of the money and you're preacher is a great guy who never has taken a paycheck. I'm talking as a general rule here.
The mission of the church is more than just charity.
Is transparency part of that? It would appear not, for most of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So you don't want separation of church and state anymore? You realize that it works BOTH ways? Keep your nose out of our business too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
